[Nordhaus] is not concerned with the science of global warming or with the detailed estimation of the damage that it may do…. His conclusions are largely independent of scientific details.

This remark is grossly misleading. Nordhaus’s model is driven by his assumptions about the science. The problem is that his projections of events seem inconsistent with the latest science. He argues, astonishingly, that under unchecked emissions growth, the world will attain the same level of output by 2100 that would have been attained in 2099 without global warming—a “trivial” 2.5 percent difference in GDP.

In the article and subsequent aimiable exchange with Nordhaus, Dyson touted no fewer than three possible crackpot mega-schemes as contingency “low-cost backstops” against global warming: “carbon-eating trees” covering fully a quarter of Earth’s vegetated land mass, “carbon-eating phytoplankton in the oceans”, and “snow-dumping in East Antarctica” (via “a giant array of tethered kites or balloons so as to block the westerly flow on one side only.”)

The warming, [Dyson] says, is not global but local, “making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.” Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields.

It also included vicious and ill-informed attacks on James Hansen and Al Gore. In a key passage, Dyson defended himself against supposed charges linking him to fossil-fuel industry.

Dyson says it’s only principle that leads him to question global warming: “According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because I’m paid by the oil industry. Of course I’m not, but that’s part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you’re a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry.” Global warming, he added, “has become a party line.”

Yet the targets of Dyson’s criticism belied his characterization of his opponents. Hansen reasonably pointed out that Dyson “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” but then added that he had “bigger fish to fry.” Hansen later apologized for the latter comment:

I accept responsibility for the sloppy wording and I will apologize to Freeman, who deserves much respect.

You might guess (correctly) that I was referring to the fact that contrarians are not the real problem – it is the vested interests who take advantage of the existence of contrarians.

Even Joe Romm, who excoriated the New York Times for giving Dyson’s crackpot musings such wide exposure, did not question Dyson’s integrity, much less suggest that he might be in the pay of fossil fuel interests.

Indeed, I am not aware of any prominent scientist, environmental activist or commentator who has made the particular claim that Dyson is “paid by the oil industry”. One is left to wonder why Dyson’s patently false assertion was left unexplored by Dawidoff.

Of course, some of Dyson’s defenders have gone further. Andrew Revkin, the normally perceptive New York Times environmental science reporter, appeared to assert that Dyson’s views were worth considering, and implied that Dyson had too much integrity to lend his name to tawdry anti-AGW PR campaigns:

On climate, Mr. Dyson may be right or wrong, and pretty much admits that. At the heart of his complaint, he rejects the idea that an airtight case has been made that humans are dangerously disrupting, or are capable of disrupting, the climate system. His main target appears to be climate simulations on computers. (Despite this, my guess is his signature won’t show up on the “case is not closed” advertisement coming from the Cato Institute next week.)

Sadly, Revkin seems to be blissfully unaware that Dyson indeed had lent his name to at least three such recent or ongoing efforts:

Endorsed by more than 100 independent scientists, engineers and economists who work in the field of climate change, the open letter calls on world leaders to abandon the goal of ‘stopping climate change’ and focus instead on helping nations become resilient to natural changes by promoting environmentally-responsible economic growth. [emphasis added]

Some obvious questions for Dyson are raised by these facts, which clearly imply that he has been used as a “tool of the oil industry”, whether wittingly or not.

First, the tight time frame of the Bali letter suggests that Dyson had little time (or inclination) to perform any due diligence. One is left to wonder whether he even bothered to ask basic questions about the NRSP, including its purpose and sources of funding. Moreover the explicit characterization of Dyson as a scientist “working in the field of climate change” is highly misleading, not to mention at odds with his express dismissal of such experts. Yet Dyson went along with the campaign anyway. It would be interesting to see the actual correspondence with the NRSP to see if Dyson raised any of these concerns.

Second, the Bali letter not only expresses doubt about the possible danger of AGW, but goes much further and explicitly asserts that natural influences on climate are much more important than human ones. It also contains the highly misleading statement that “there has been no net global warming since 1998″. But Dyson seems to shy away from such statements, so one wonders whether he actually fully supports the statement he signed.

Finally, although there is absolutely no indication that Dyson has received any direct or indirect financial payment from fossil fuel companies, one can ask if his co-operation with Tom Harris may have benefitted hin in other ways. For example, the attendant publicity may have spurred increased media coverage or writing and speaking engagements, along with an increase in book sales.

The implications of the affair for the New York Times and other media outlets are equally disturbing. How could journalists of the stature of Dawidoff and Revkin completely miss Dyson’s willing co-operation with anti-AGW initiatives, and thus the opportunity to explore the real story and ask the real questions?

The episode also betrays a shocking breach of journalistic integrity at the National Post, one that, so far at least, has gone completely unnoticed. It is clear from Tom Harris’s letter of solicitation that he had already struck a deal to with the Post to publish the open letter; indeed, his official press release on the Bali letter actually pointed to the online National Post version of the letter. Yet National Post editor Terence Corcoran’s accompanying commentary hid any hint of the involvement of the NRSP and Tom Harris. The obvious implications are described in the SourceWatch article on the matter:

On January 2, 2008, a SourceWatch contributor sent an e-mail to National Post editor-in-chief Douglas Kelly, advising him of the above facts concerning NRSP involvement in the Bali open letter. This e-mail goes on to state:

“From all this, two reasonable inferences may be drawn:

“a) Terence Corcoran played a key role in an expertly organized and well funded public relations campaign designed to discredit the work of the IPCC and indeed the entire UNFCCC process.

“b) Even worse, Corcoran deliberately witheld information about the role of the NRSP in the open letter, and misled National Post readers about the true provenance of the letter.”

The e-mail asserts that Corcoran’s behaviour “is a clear breach of journalistic ethics and damages the credibility of the National Post” and exhorts Kelly to publish a full correction and to consider appropriate sanctions against Corcoran including suspension or dismissal.

Responsible journalists are understandably reluctant to criticize their colleagues in competing outlets (a reticence not shared by the likes of the National Post or Fox News). But this episode is merely one example, albeit a particularly egregious one, of a relentless “war on science” in which mainstream media outlets are playing a key role, whether out of ignorance or ideological bias, or (as in the case of the New York Times), a misplaced sense of “balance”.

Fossil fuel company apologists like Tom Harris and Marc Morano (now of Climate Depot) are working relentlessly to sow doubt about climate change science. With the active or passive co-operation of media outlets, it looks like they are succeeding. It’s time for the likes of Revkin to stand up and start speaking out, instead of averting their eyes from the obvious and relying on a misplaced faith in the “marketplace of ideas” to make things right.

You can’t refute Dyson’s scientific accomplishments, so you must refute the man’s integrity. This is a typical tactic of the AGW true-believer. You have shaky science with no empirical proof, so you must resort to ad hominem attacks.

DC: There’s no doubt about Dyson’s accomplishments in physics, but when it comes to climate science (or economics), there’s nothing to refute as he has not published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

It’s true that I find Dyson’s participation in fossil fuel industry funded disinformation troubling. But until the media ask him the right questions about this, I’ll withhold judgment as to whether this bespeaks a lack of integrity or merely a surprisingly foolish gullibility. Either way, I’m criticizing his specific statements and actions in this regard.]

> one can ask if [Dyson’s] co-operation with Tom Harris may have benefitted hin in other ways…

Another consideration involves not him, but his relatives. When I don my “threatened trillion dollar industry” thinking cap, when said industry has deeper-than-deep pockets and has had 8 years to infiltrate any government body it chooses, all sorts of quid pro quos become possible.

When the Yale Env360 folks ran a Dyson interview recently ( http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151 ), I emailed his daughter Esther Dyson to invite her to share her views – but I didn’t get an email response, and from what I can tell, she didn’t comment on the post.
(I can’t know for sure, since my comments on that blog post didn’t survive moderation (by someone who, when I asked in email, wouldn’t identify him/herself))

I hate to drag in likely innocents … but there comes a point when our societal responsibilities should run a hell of a lot deeper than anything filial. [[para. edited at commenter’s request.]]

[DC: I disagree strenuously with your insinuation about Esther Dyson (and any further comments in this direction are likely to be moved to unthreaded, per my comment policy). It is not necessary or desirable to drag Dyson’s family into a discussion of his complaisance with energy industry funded PR disinformation.

Thanks for the heads up on Yale 360 discussion. I have commented on that post.]

DC, I wish I could communicate with you by email; I didn’t mean to insinuate although I see it came out that way.
But I don’t know if I can clarify, without having you smite my comment.
(And FWIW, my smitten e360 comments were about funding, not E.D.)

I think this is mostly wild-goose-chase. If I had to guess, this is what you get when you combine classic contrarianess & possible “going emeritus”, and I’d speculate that Dyson really doesn’t understand anti-science thinktanks very well. Note that he’s apparently signed up as an “expert” for Heartland, which is trying to be an uber-entity of anti-science, so he naturally gets connected up with all sorts of people, and I’d be surprised if he’s researching any of them.

Anna: for various reasons, I’d guess it’s not going to be in any way productive to chase either Esther or George on what their father is doing.

Google: mashey dyson freeman PSYCH-5
I’ve written a few times on this. Personally, I think it’s a sad case, but no more.

[DC: I agree this is a sad case. However, I still think a lot of pertinent questions have not been asked of him.

I’ve seen Dyson’s bio at Heartland, and his views are prominently cited, but I don’t see where he’s “signed on as an expert with Heartland.” Can you provide a link for that?]

Dyson has opined on climate change for decades, this isn’t just a recent twist. I have a copy of his (generally wonderful) collection of essays, “From Eros to Gaia”, one of which concerns his view in the 1950’s that we didn’t have to worry because the oceans would soak up all the extra stuff we emit. It turns out to be a bit more complicated than that – Keeling’s discovery that CO2 really was increasing at the end of that decade squashed that line of argument, but the no-need-to-worry sentiment seems to have returned elsewhere in Dyson’s thinking over time.

(“Global Warming Experts – Click the links below for short biographies of some of the nation’s leading experts on climate change and related topics.”)

And I see biochemist Bruce Ames is still on that list too; which is odd, since he told me six months ago that he doesn’t consider himself to be a “global warming expert”, cc’ing Joe Bast and saying “I will send a copy of this to Joseph Bast, the director of Heartland, who I am sure will take my name off the list. ”

[DC: I still don’t think Dyson signed on with Heartland; the “Global Warming Experts” list appears to be a fairly generic list of contrarians including many who have no apparent connection to Heartland, not even as conference presenters. So it’s less problematic for me than his active co-operation with Tom Harris. Still, he should have his name removed, as he acknowledges that he is not a climate expert.

As Karl says, this is typical of the drivel spouted by the AGW believers when anyone tries to question their religious beliefs:
– Don’t attempt to discuss the science with them, but make false associations with Exxon and the right wing press.
– Make false accusations about ‘vicious and ill-informed attacks’. Dyson said of Hansen
“He consistently exaggerates all the dangers.” which is correct and not vicious. In fact of course it is the other way around, Hansen made the offensive remarks about Dyson, and then had to apologise.

Anyway, thank you for giving this brilliant scientist more publicity. I hope people will look up his comments and make up their own mind.

Hansen said that Dyson “didn’t know what he was talking about”, which seems to me a fairly mild response to Dyson’s attacks (and happens to be true). And of course Hansen did not apologize for that remark (only for the equally mild reference to “bigger fish to fry”).

If and when Dyson actually publishes scientific research on climate, we can “discuss the science”, but not until then. As to “false associations”, I stand by every fact presented in this post. I tend to agree with John Mashey that Dyson probably represents a “sad case”, but that does not excuse the contemptible behaviour of Tom Harris and the National Post, nor Dyson’s complaisance.]

Having read the Bali Letter and the list of signatories I am puzzled as to why you are attacking Mr Dyson in such a manner.
The letter expresses how a lot of very distinguished scientists think. They put up an argument. If you disagree then please put your counter argument. With some facts please.
Picking one name out of a hundred and and insinuating that he is involved in “tawdry anti-AGW campaigns” says more about you than him.
Is it “tawdry” to argue a scientific case?
Or is it tawdry to try and smear a man with an immense scientific credential and the courage to stand up?

[DC: I stand by every fact in this article, including the provenance of the letter from PR consultant Tom Harris, who is a climate disinformation specialist with a long history of links to the fossil fuel industry.

Now let’s examine a key finding of the supposed “scientific case” in the Bali letter statement, namely that “there has been no net global warming since 1998.”

a) This has been debunked thoroughly literally hundreds of times, including here and elsewhere.

b) To my knowledge, Freeman Dyson has never stated this himself. So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask the question as to whether or not he really supports the validity of this statement.

Finally, I observe that it’s quite a stretch to refer to the list of signatories as “lot of very distinguished scientists.” Only a handful, including Dyson, could conceivably be described this way. But many among the list are not even scientists at all, let alone “very distinguished.” And almost all, including Dyson himself, have no expertise in climate science, and have not published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.]

I cannot believe the dream-world bubble the silly AGW contingent lives in. James Hansen has taken upwards of a million dollars [that we know of] from organizations with a clear AGW agenda — but the esteemed Prof. Freeman Dyson is presumed to be owned by the evil fossil fuel conspiracy?? Double standard, much?

Unlike Freeman Dyson, the odious James Hansen is paid by the taxpaying public to provide agenda-free science. The taxpayers are being cheated.

Of course, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and Hansen is obviously doing the bidding of those shady outside organizations that are paying him those big bucks — and to hell with the taxpayers, who end up paying for the discredited AGW propaganda instigated by the $$$$$ flowing into Mr. Hansen’s pockets from devious NGOs and individuals who have ulterior motives in flogging the repeatedly debunked CO2=AGW scam.

And yes, it is a scam. That is why neither Hansen, nor Pachauri, nor Mann, nor Gore, nor any other high profile AGW purveyor will agree to engage in a neutral, moderated debate. Instead, they tuck their tails between their hind legs and hide out.

The failed CO2 = AGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. Repeatedly! Yet the spittle-flecked arm-waving by the wild-eyed AGW True Believers continues to increase in intensity, caused by their desperation, as they realize that the public is awakening to the falsified AGW scam: as CO2 continues to rise steadily, the planet’s temperature continues to fall (and don’t give me any AGW horse manure about that not being the case. I worked in a closely related climate field for 30+ years.)

Criticizing Freeman Dyson simply because he isn’t published by the thoroughly corrupted climate peer-review clique is disingenuous; how many times have you, or Joe Romm, or Al Gore been published? But since Freeman Dyson hasn’t submitted for publication, you feel free to ad hom him for it. Despicable.

Prof. Dyson has always been a straight shooter. Where does that leave you?

[DC: You’re the one apparently living in a “dream world”. I suppose there’s no harm in letting you spout this nonsense, but of course the facts are completely at odds with every one of your outrageous assertions. And, of course, your pernicious statements about James Hansen “doing the bidding of those shady outside organizations that are paying him those big bucks”, are completely without foundation whatsoever. I’m letting it go this time, but only as a textbook case of wild-eyed conspiracy theorist in action.

Of course, it is utterly false to suggest that I (or anyone else to my knowledge) has suggested that Dyson should be “presumed to be owned by the evil fossil fuel conspiracy”. In fact, I clearly pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence that he has recieved money for his efforts.

I did criticize Dyson allowing himself to be used and signing a petition organized by one of the most notorious climate disinformation specialists around. The Bali open letter included statements that are clearly false, and even in apparent conflict with Dyson’s own published views. All I ask is that the media pose the right questions. Meanwhile, I stand by every fact presented here.]

The wheels seem to be coming off don’t they. Now that the boys over at RealClimate agree that there has been no warming for the last decade where does this leave your main argument?
“Now let’s examine a key finding of the supposed “scientific case” in the Bali letter statement, namely that “there has been no net global warming since 1998.” ”
Do you now agree with the Bali Letter or are you still a denier?

a) Swanson’s hypothesis is that global temperature the 2010s will be roughly the same as in the 2000s. This is highly debatable, and of course, there is no evidence for it as yet.

b) If Swanson is correct, decadal natural variability is greater than previously thought, but so is climate sensitivity to CO2. That is why his hypothesis also includes a return to a steep warming trend after 2020.

c) To repeat: No one, including Swanson, has shown decadal cooling or lack of warming in the 2000s. Each of the past three decades has been significantly warmer than the one before. That includes the 2000s relative to the 1990s.]

I did not misunderstand the post on RC. And I do realise that Swanson is not a member of the hockey team. But what I do understand – as I am sure you do – is that Swanson is a proxy for the team. This is the start of the retreat. Napoleon would have understood it. He also had to make a major retreat because of cold weather.

The game is up DC. Up till now most sensible people were willing to concede that the globe was warming and that mankind may have something to do with it. What people like me didn’t like was people like you taking the moral high ground, on slender evidence at best, and insisting that everyone should change their lifestyles – because you are right. Your attitude has been one of intolerance and self righteous priggery. No other point of view is accepted. You are saving the planet and therefore everyone should do as they are told.

That was almost bearable when the climate was warming and maybe – just maybe – there was something in it. All the instincts I and many others felt that there was something wrong with this had to be suppressed. The “weather” was definitely warmer. The total lack of evidence that CO2 was the cause had to be ignored. No longer. Of the 20 major computer models none can agree with each other. None of them predicted the current situation. If they can’t agree and can’t accurately predict what’s actually happening – THEY ARE WRONG. CO2 has been increasing at a constant rate. Where is the forcing? There is no way around it. There is obviously something else going on that is a far more powerful forcing agent than CO2. The warming has stopped. It is getting cold out there. No amount of bluster and bluff is going to cover this up.

The hypothesis that global warming will resume is just as invalid as the hypothesis that CO2 caused global warming in the first place. There is not, and never has been, any observable evidence for it. To restructure the entire global economy on the basis of this flimsy house of straw is lunacy and it is only a matter of time before that becomes obvious to the most stupid and venal of politicians. The backlash against “climate scientists” will be ferocious. I hope you are preparing your escape.

[DC: You say: “There is obviously something else going on that is a far more powerful forcing agent than CO2.”

Skeptics have claimed that for years, although they can’t seem to agree on what it could be, nor offer any actual evidence. It sure as heck is not ENSO.

Please stop spouting nonsense about a “pause” in global warming. We still have not had a decade as cool or cooler than a preceding one, and there is no evidence that we will in the coming decade. The most one can say as that warming could be modulated by longer cycles in ocean-atmosphere that result in more decadal variation than anticipated. But that hypothesis is still speculation and does not affect expected warming this century.]

Sorry not to reply to your previous – very busy – you know how it is . .

Did you notice the story in the New York Times on the 21st Sept.

“The world leaders who are meeting at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.”

The NYT is not noted for being a hotbed of sceptics. Do you still cling to your previous quote?

“Please stop spouting nonsense about a “pause” in global warming. We still have not had a decade as cool or cooler than a preceding one, and there is no evidence that we will in the coming decade.”

The pressure is on to admit the obvious DC. Even major players on the AGW team are facing up to the inevitable. It’s going to get very lonely in the ivory tower.

“Professor Mojib Latif, (lead author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.

“The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm”.”

Which begs a question. If the only evidence we have for AGW are the model projections and none of them predicted what is actually happening, how can anyone predict a resumption in warming in 10, 20 or 30 years. On what basis?

[DC: You quote a blogger (from the BBC, I believe, although you provide no citation) as saying “professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.” That is a gross distortion. In fact the Keenlyside et al 2008 (Nature) projection for 2010-2020 calls for 1.8C warming according to my preliminary analysis. The paper also makes clear that by “some years”, Latif means up to 2015 – only five years from now. More discussion of these points can be found in my post on Andrew Revkin.]

The quote comes from a speech by the good professor to the World Climate Conference in Geneva last week.

The point is, surely, that something not accounted for in the models must be affecting the climate. Let’s find it. This is science isn’t it?[DC: I see no quote, just a mistaken paraphrase from a blogger: “Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.” Latif said no such thing.

And, by the way, even the quote you give above makes clear that Latif refers to the “strong warming of the last decades”. He did not ever refer to cooling or even lack of warming in the last decade, and I defy you to find a direct quote from him where he did.]